Printer Friendly
March 1, 2006
Sept. 29, 2006
Sept. 28, 2006
Sept. 27, 2006
Sept. 26, 2006
Sept. 21, 2006
Sept. 20, 2006
Sept. 19, 2006
Sept. 14, 2006
Sept. 13, 2006
Sept. 12, 2006
Sept. 07, 2006
Sept. 06, 2006
Jul. 28, 2006
Jul. 27, 2006
Jul. 26, 2006
Jul. 25, 2006
Jul. 24, 2006
Jul. 20, 2006
Jul. 19, 2006
Jul. 18, 2006
Jul. 17, 2006
Jul. 13, 2006
Jul. 12, 2006
Jul. 11, 2006
Jul. 10, 2006
Jun. 29, 2006
Jun. 28, 2006
Jun. 27, 2006
Jun. 26, 2006
Jun. 22, 2006
Jun. 21, 2006
Jun. 20, 2006
Jun. 19, 2006
Jun. 16, 2006
Jun. 15, 2006
Jun. 14, 2006
Jun. 13, 2006
Jun. 12, 2006
Jun. 9, 2006
Jun. 8, 2006
Jun. 7, 2006
Jun. 6, 2006
May 25, 2006
May 24, 2006
May 23, 2006
May 22, 2006
May 19, 2006
May 18, 2006
May 17, 2006
May 11, 2006
May 10, 2006
May 4, 2006
May 3, 2006
May 2, 2006
Apr. 27, 2006
Apr. 26, 2006
Apr. 25, 2006
Apr. 6, 2006
Apr. 5, 2006
Apr. 4, 2006
Mar. 30, 2006
Mar. 29, 2006
Mar. 28, 2006
Mar. 16, 2006
Mar. 15, 2006
Mar. 14, 2006
Mar. 9, 2006
Mar. 8, 2006
Mar. 7, 2006
Mar. 2, 2006
Mar. 1, 2006
Feb. 28, 2006
Feb. 16, 2006
Feb. 15, 2006
Feb. 14, 2006
Feb. 8, 2006
Feb. 1, 2006
Jan. 31, 2006
Dec. 16, 2005
Dec. 15, 2005
Dec. 14, 2005
Dec. 13, 2005
Dec. 8, 2005
Dec. 7, 2005
Dec. 6, 2005
|
Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the press! Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T. Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary
The Morning Murmur - Wednesday, March 01, 2006
1. The Redistricting Case - Washington Times Op-ed
Today, the Supreme Court is set to hear the Texas Democrats' challenge to
the redrawn congressional district map that obliterated their long-held
majority after the 2004 election. It's small wonder they would want to
return to their former majority status, no matter how at odds that majority
was with Texan voters.
2. Bush Hails Afghanistan's Progress Under Karzai - Forbes
In his first visit to Afghanistan, President Bush hailed the country's
progress under President Hamid Karzai since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.
3. Prosecutors: Documents Smoking Gun - Associate Press
Prosecutors presented documents Tuesday they said show Saddam Hussein
approved executions of more than 140 Shiites in the 1980s, the most direct
evidence yet against the former Iraqi leader in his four-month trial. Among
those sentenced to hang was an 11-year-old boy.
4. Scandals Don't Deliver Elections - USA Today Op-ed
For months now, the Democrats have been giving voice to the charge that the
Republicans in Washington preside over a "culture of corruption" as the key
to regaining the majority in the House and Senate in the 2006 elections. But
when political scandals of the past are examined, it turns out that few of
them have, by themselves, made much difference in the ensuing election.
5. U.S. Told to Help 15 Cubans Return - Washington Times
A federal judge ruled yesterday that the U.S. government acted unreasonably
when it sent home 15 Cubans who thought they had made it to the United
States safely when their boat reached an abandoned bridge in the Florida
Keys. The judge ordered the federal government to make its best effort to
help the 15 return to the United States.
For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to
www.GOPsecretary.gov
FULL ARTICLES BELOW:
1. The Redistricting Case - Washington Times Op-ed
Published March 1, 2006
Today, the Supreme Court is set to hear the Texas Democrats' challenge to
the redrawn congressional district map enacted by the Republican-controlled
legislature in 2003. Democrats are steamed, because the new map obliterated
their long-held majority after the 2004 election. It's small wonder they
would want to return to their former majority status, no matter how at odds
that majority was with Texan voters.
The Texas congressional map was redrawn was in 1991 -- by a
Democratic-controlled legislature. (A 2002 court-mandated redistricting
basically reaffirmed the 1991 map.) In 1994, Democratic candidates received
just 43 percent of the vote, but won 63 percent of the congressional seats
(a 19-11 majority). In 2002, when Republicans swept all statewide offices
and garnered 56 percent of the congressional vote, Democrats maintained a
17-15 majority. In fact, no Texas Democrat has won a statewide office since
1994. A year later, Republicans took over the legislature and redrew the
map.
No one questions what Republicans were trying to do. The new map led them to
a 21-11 majority in 2004 election. But Republicans also received nearly 60
percent of the overall congressional vote. It's fair to argue that this is a
better reflection of the partisan breakdown of Texan voters, than the former
Democratic power grab. Clearly, the Democrats want to return Texas to the
imbalance of the 1990s.
Because the Democrats have challenged the 2003 map on numerous grounds, such
as arguing certain redrawn districts violate the Voting Rights Act, there
are several issues for the court to consider. The voting-rights complaint
charges that Republicans split districts to intentionally dilute the
strength of minority voting blocs. It's a specious claim, since it assumes
that a particular race will always vote for a particular party. It also
ignores that the 2003 map added a minority-majority district. But the
jurisprudence on this part of the Voting Rights Act is so muddled there is
really no telling how the court might rule.
The larger question -- whether redistricting for partisan advantage is
constitutional -- has no clear precedent. In a 2004 Pennsylvania
redistricting case, the court split 4-4 on whether political gerrymandering
claims could ever be justly decided, with the conservative bloc arguing that
they could not. Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose swing vote dismissed the
case, agreed that standards of unconstitutional gerrymandering could be
devised in theory, just not in that case.
Democrats also argue that it is unconstitutional to redistrict more than
once in a decade. But nothing in the Constitution prevents it. Moreover, the
Texas electoral history mentioned above shows once-a-decade redistricting
may create an undemocratic system.
There are many ways the Supreme Court could rule this one, some more
satisfactory than others. The court could strike down one or two of the new
districts on the grounds that they violate the Voting Rights Act, which
would require the legislature to redraw them. They would then be reviewed by
a three-judge panel. Or it could strike the map entirely. Such a precedent
would allow any state's minority party to contest its congressional district
map and further involve the judiciary in legislative affairs.
Which is why the court would be wise to let the map stand. Far better to
acknowledge that gerrymandering is a problem, but a problem for the states
to solve.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060228-091050-1569r.htm
2. Bush Hails Afghanistan's Progress Under Karzai - Forbes
March 1, 2006
KABUL (AFX) - US President George W Bush has hailed Afghanistan's progress
under President Hamid Karzai since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.
'We are impressed by the progress that your country is making Mr President,
a lot of it has to do with your leadership,' Bush told Karzai at a joint
conference during the US leader's first visit to the country.
'People all over the world are watching the experience here in Afghanistan.
I hope the people of Afghanistan understand that democracy takes hold,' he
said.
'You are inspiring others and that inspiration will cause others to demand
their freedom, and as the world becomes more free the world will become more
peaceful.'
He added: 'It's a thrill to come to a country which is dedicating itself to
the dignity of every person who lives here.'
Bush said the US embassy in Kabul, which he was officially opening during
his visit, is a 'clear statement' to the people of Afghanistan that the
United States is dedicated to helping the country.
'It's our country's pleasure and honor to be involved in the future of this
country,' he added.
'We like stories of young girls going to school for the first time so they
can realize their potential. We appreciate the free press. We are enthralled
when we see an entrepreuneurial class grow up where people are able to grow
up and realize their dreams,' he said.
'We understand the importance of having a well-trained military dedicated to
the sovereignty of the country and to the peace of the people.'
Karzai said Afghanistan is indebted to the United States, which led the
military operation that overthrew the hardline Taliban following the Sept
11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.
'We owe a great, great deal in this country's rebuilding peace, democracy --
strong steps towards the future -- to your support, to your leadership, to
the American people,' Karzai said
http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2006/03/01/afx2561004.html
3. Prosecutors: Documents Smoking Gun - Associate Press
March 1, 2006
BY BASSEM MROUE
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Prosecutors presented documents Tuesday they said show
Saddam Hussein approved executions of more than 140 Shiites in the 1980s,
the most direct evidence yet against the former Iraqi leader in his
four-month trial. Among those sentenced to hang was an 11-year-old boy.
The most significant document featured a signature said to be Saddam's on a
court list of people to be executed, though it was not clear he was aware of
their ages. The list on that particular document only had names.
About 50 of those sentenced died during interrogation before they could go
to the gallows. One man, his brother and two sons were executed by mistake,
and Saddam allegedly ordered them declared "martyrs" to cover up the error.
When it was discovered that the 11-year-old and nine other juveniles were
not executed but were still in prison years later, they were ordered killed
and their bodies buried in secret -- an order approved with a signature the
prosecution said was that of the intelligence agency chief at the time,
Barzan Ibrahim, who is Saddam's half brother and a co-defendant in the
trial.
No more shouting from Saddam
Saddam, Ibrahim and six other members of the former regime are on trial for
torture, imprisonment and the killings of some 148 Shiites in a crackdown
launched after a 1982 attempt to assassinate the former Iraqi leader in the
town of Dujail. They face death by hanging if convicted.
Tuesday's session was one of the most orderly since the trial began in
October. The defense team gave up on a boycott of the tribunal it began last
month and attended the session, though chief judge Raouf Abdel-Rahman
rejected their demand that he and chief prosecutor Jaafar al-Moussawi step
down.
Saddam and the other defendants entered the court and took their seats
silently -- in sharp contrast with nearly every other session, which began
with Saddam and Ibrahim shouting slogans or arguing with the judge.
Saddam and several other defendants have ended a hunger strike he and some
co-defendants started Feb. 12, two days before the last trial session,
defense lawyer Khamis al-Obeidi said Sunday.
After the two-hour session, Abdel-Rahman adjourned until today.
The defense team's participation appeared to vindicate the tough approach
Abdel-Rahman has taken since taking over the tribunal in late January,
replacing a chief judge who had been criticized for allowing Saddam's
outbursts.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-saddam01.html#
4. Scandals Don't Deliver Elections - USA Today Op-ed
By Ross K. Baker
For months now, the Democrats have been giving voice to the charge that the
Republicans in Washington preside over a "culture of corruption."
The phrase was popularized by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi in her
attacks on the Bush administration for its halting response to Hurricane
Katrina. The cry has been taken up by other Democrats who see the scandal
involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff as the key to regaining the majority in the
House and making headway in the Senate in the 2006 elections.
But when political scandals of the past are examined, it turns out that few
of them have, by themselves, made much difference in the ensuing election.
And it turns out that Watergate, the one modern scandal that really did have
monumental electoral consequences, is something of a quirk. In those few
other instances in which the party in power did suffer, other factors better
explain its loss.
The Lewinsky affair. We need go no further back than 1998 and the scandal
surrounding the revelation that President Clinton had an extramarital
relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky and then attempted to
cover it up by lying and allegedly trying to obstruct the investigation.
As the scandal unfolded and as the explosive report by Special Prosecutor
Kenneth Starr led to the House impeachment vote, House Speaker Newt Gingrich
was traveling the country predicting a GOP gain in the 1998 election of
between 10 and 40 seats. Instead, Democrats gained five House seats. The
embarrassment led to Gingrich's loss of the speakership.
Ike and a vicuna coat. The scandal of the past that most closely resembles
the current uproar over lobbying excesses is the one that struck the
Eisenhower administration in June 1958. At that time, House Democrats
charged that a Boston businessman - Bernard Goldfine, who was having
problems with the Securities and Exchange Commission - had paid hotel bills
for Eisenhower's chief of staff, Sherman Adams, and given Adams an expensive
vicuna coat. Adams, in turn, interceded for Goldfine with the SEC.
The Democrats trumpeted the corruption theme, and the second Eisenhower
midterm election in 1958 became a GOP debacle, one of the worst losses for a
president's party that century. This election is often described as a
turning point in American politics because liberal Democrats replaced so
many conservative Republicans. Richard Nixon, then Eisenhower's vice
president, wrote that, "Nov. 4, 1958, was one of the most depressing
election nights I have ever known."
What undoubtedly caused the sky to fall on the GOP was not the Adams scandal
but the worst recession since the end of World War II. In October 1957, the
stock market had its sharpest decline since the one following Eisenhower's
heart attack in 1955. Unemployment surged while consumer prices actually
rose. Compared with this economic cataclysm, the hotel bills and the vicuna
coat were blips on the voters' screens.
Teapot Dome. No political scandal in the first half of the 20th century was
as notorious as the one that struck the Harding administration in 1923. It
involved the transfer of land containing oil deposits in Teapot Dome in
Wyoming from the Navy to the Department of the Interior and the secret
leasing of those lands to oil companies by Interior Secretary Albert Fall.
The scandal led to the resignations of Fall, the secretary of the Navy and
the attorney general, who was a close associate of Harding.
The Democrats, who had suffered the loss of the White House in 1920 but
seemed to be on the verge of a comeback, were overjoyed by the promise of
real gains in the 1924 election in the wake of the scandal, but the death of
Harding in 1923 and his replacement with Vice President Calvin Coolidge
diverted public attention from Teapot Dome. The Republicans won a stunning
victory in 1924. The new president and an improving economy trumped
lingering concerns about official corruption.
What matters. Tempting as the Abramoff scandal is for Democrats and eager as
they are to see the lobbyist implicate additional Republicans, the culture
of corruption charge cannot be the only string to the Democrats' bow. And
while further revelations may taint many more Republicans with wrongdoing,
other problems such as the Iraq war, the deficit or even the turnover of
American port operations to a company from the United Arab Emirates may be
even more toxic for the GOP in 2006.
It is not that scandals have no political payoff for the opposition, it's
that other factors are needed. The Democrats' loss of their control of both
the House and Senate in 1994 was preceded by a scandal that became public in
April 1992 that concerned abuses in a bank used exclusively by members of
the House. But the voters' vengeance was not unleashed in the elections that
November. Only when revelations of the bank's preferential treatment of
House members' overdrafts combined with broader dissatisfaction with
President Clinton was the full force of voters' wrath felt. But the
Republicans did not stand by idly and enjoy the Democrats' agonies. They
offered a "Contract with America" that gave voters more than just
dissatisfaction as an incentive to vote.
Many voters take it for granted that politicians can be corrupted, and the
Democrats cannot assume that their indignation will persist until November.
A warranty on political integrity with no expiration date that covers all
major defects in the way Congress does business, including its failure to
check the excesses of the executive branch, would be a good start.
Ross K. Baker is a political science professor at Rutgers University. He
also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-02-28-baker-edit_x.htm
5. U.S. Told to Help 15 Cubans Return - Washington Times
Published March 1, 2006
MIAMI (AP) -- A federal judge ruled yesterday that the U.S. government acted
unreasonably when it sent home 15 Cubans who thought they had made it to the
United States safely when their boat reached an abandoned bridge in the
Florida Keys.
U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno ordered the federal government to make
its best effort to help the 15 return to the United States, said Kendall
Coffey, an attorney for the Cubans and their relatives.
Under the federal government's long-standing "wet-foot, dry-foot" policy,
Cubans who reach U.S. soil are generally allowed to stay, while those
stopped at sea are sent back.
In this case, the U.S. government argued that the old bridge did not count
as dry land because chunks of it are missing and because it is no longer
connected to U.S. soil.
The migrants landed on the pilings along a nearly three-mile span of the
abandoned bridge Jan. 4, as their small boat began to take on water. Had
they landed 100 yards away on the new bridge, the U.S. Coast Guard likely
would have allowed them to stay.
Ramon Saul Sanchez, head of Democracy Movement, a Cuban-American advocacy
group that joined in the lawsuit, was pleased with the judge's ruling.
"Really, it is a vindication for all immigrants," said Mr. Sanchez, who
waged an 11-day hunger strike to protest the group's return to Cuba.
It is not clear whether Cuban leader Fidel Castro would allow the 15 to
leave his communist island.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060228-110036-6793r.htm
###
|